javascriptlol

Boohoo. If I come into work with a big pink sombrero on my head people would probably give me some unfavorable remarks. My reasons for wearing it are irrelevant. It wouldn't excuse violence or career repercussions, but it would be childish to expect that you can present yourself in any way you like without others reacting to it. That is a key purpose of presentation.

How.. hypocritical. Dumbo.

Thank you for your clarifications. I'm glad we've been able to get past the quibbles.

I don't think smaller issues should be ignored. Continuing my metaphor, I don't think the flu should be ignored. It is a health problem that must be addressed. But for most healthy individuals it is properly addressed by sleep, fluids and relaxation. Sometimes people get it badly and theuy need further treatment. But by stuffing everyone with antibiotics to prevent the mere possibility of pneumonia or even bronchitis, we are causing secondary problems such as antibiotic resistance. Similarly, whenever we try to over-think human interaction we grow the beast of rationalistic meddling.

Trying to eliminate the flu would be foolish. Stuffing people with antibiotics is foolish. I am not making a dogmatic statement about how all small problems are irrelevant. I am expressing frustration with more complaints over increasingly marginal grievances. It points to a lack of character and a mindless quest to maximise some sense of fairness that for me often lacks authenticity. If we become touchy about small issues we will lose all resilience and perspective.

Leaving aside despicable comments about breasts and so forth that we can easily address through instant reprimand, I don't think being asked to do the notes in a meeting or organise a potluck represents subservience. It is just as stupid as complaining about a request for "a few strong men" to help move some things. Or the stupid outrages over "mrs" versus "ms". People are so sensitive. Raise your objection or get on with it.

I'm not saying the poster is a bad person here. I don't think it's wrong to make this post. Nor would I think it's wrong for someone to complain about any number of other trivial things. But it does point to a sense of entitlement and lack of resilience. I don't like that, and I think we should be working against that trend, not with it.

Down-voting is not for responses you don't find interesting. It is for hiding responses that abuse the forum. Your mental lethargy is not an excuse to down vote people you disagree with.

Again, HN shames itself by down-voting a point it has no answer. Someone show me how we can eliminate "bullying" and unfairness anymore than we can eliminate disease. Too much social control will just give rise to new problems, thus creating more need for the "fairness" industry.

>You have given nothing to support the argument that treating someone as subservient based on gender 'ultimately does us good.'

I never said this. Quote me where I said this, or I will be forced to regard you as a liar.

And I never said "small issues don't matter". Why make things up? I am saying that I am bored with endless complaints that exist around noise level. Since I posted a few times and I may not have been redundant enough, I'll be explicit in that I think taunting women about their breasts in the workplace is despicable and anyone who witnessed such a thing should immediately speak up. Anything less is cowardice.

My beef with this post is the complaints about "subtle" sexism. People don't seem to understand that people are unfair to others all the time. There is nothing but a kind of blind secular faith that eliminating these micro-injustices is going to help anybody. So you show me someone who refuses to hire women or abuses them and I will tell them where to stick it. I stand up to people who promote ideas I think are harmful. But I don't want to hear about "perceived" problems that are indistinguishable from the noise-level unfairness that nobody can stop ("boohoo I got asked to take some notes and I think it _might_ have been because I am a woman"). If you don't want to take notes say "no". Better yet do a shitty job. Instead we have people arguing about how one type of slave gets whipped on the buttocks and the other gets it on the thigh, missing the point that if we set the slaves free they wouldn't be getting whipped at all. But don't let me stop you opining about the decor while the house burns down.

And the people down-voting me are just PC thugs with no ability to confront an alternate point of view.

What is your problem? I don't ever talk about this in that setting. I'm illustrating an idea, and you try to bully me with things I never did. I don't have "macho" baggage. Where did you get this information from? How would you even know if it was true? I'm pointing out that society imposes some limitations on people and that it's pointless to complain over every single little thing. Your admission that these impositions on men are no big deal just serves to illustrate my point: that there's nothing serious going on here. Just first-worlders complaining over every little perceived disadvantage. And yes I would say something if I witnessed someone bullying a coworker as the OP describes. That doesn't mean I'd be sympathetic to whining about it.

Give me one example of a society where youthful aggression has been eliminated.

Sorry, I can't talk to someone who says that rape is "accepted" as something that we just do. There are some idiots trying to justify it for sure. Not once did I try to justify rape. You talk nonsense about "power culture" that I never even brought up. I believe in small, resilient entities. This is the opposite of a "power culture". Centuries ago it would have been inconceivable that we would eliminate smallpox. The fact that we might eliminate the flu and other small-harm diseases in the future is not a reason to laud the idea as a good one.

You use sophistry. Punches to the face face will make a cancer patient worse. In fact, getting the flu may kill them. The poster is not a cancer patient; presumably, they are a reasonable independent person with some self esteem. So they are capable of learning resilience. We need to distinguish between small harms that ultimately do us good and large harms that are sending society on a destructive course.

Don't downvote, respond. I am not abusing anyone here.

The "computing is hard" excuse is a pathetic cop-out by people who can't see past their own self interest.

Your response is sad, because you accuse me of things I never said. I never said "bullying" was justified. Infectious disease is a fact of life. We can wash our hands and prevent the worst plagues, but there is every reason to think that total elimination of disease would be ecologically unsound for humans. People need an immune system. Do you think that I am now "justifying" HIV? It's not "sexism" to be a prejudiced human being.

You are painting these things as universal. If there were some rule about women and potlucks I'd care. As it is, there is not. I have never even seen a potluck in the workplace! There are much bigger, structural problems to worry about right now. It's like we're on a boat with a hole in the bottom and every interest group is complaining that their feet are getting wetter than all the others. We wouldn't have this problem if the environment were more conducive to smaller businesses - women could avoid these problems by becoming their own bosses. Instead of escaping our entrapments we are arguing for better conditions in the prison.

Sexual assault is no joke. But so what if someone gives you "unwanted attention"? We have become a culture of whiners and rationalisers. It would be like me, as a man, going on and on about how unfair it is that I'm expected to hide fear and put the safety of females before my own. Of course, we're well along the way to destroying that tradition. People ignore the myriad of subtle advantages to this "sexist" approach, starting with the fact that in an emergency no thought needs to be exercised - men know reflexively that they are to put themselves between danger and other people. Maybe we can weaken this a bit and use some different criteria like "the best and bravest should protect others". But if we let the more fantatical egalitarians run the show it will end up with unworkable madness like demanding equal representation in self-sacrifice between men and women.

The problem with these posts is that we only hear the horror stories. We get a sensational picture of constant harassment from one unlucky person. Most of what was written here was outright harassment. In many places it would be seen as outright illegal for the company to allow this to continue.

I take issue with complaining about "subtle" sexism, however. Life is not fair for men either. In fact, unfairness is universal in life for reasons that are out of anybody's control. By pushing for unobtainable fairness, you are training people to expect fairness, which is disabling. Boys are attacked by other boys in school. You are constantly tested by other males for signs of fear. Big deal. It toughens you up for later life. Gender "equality" in many ways has become just another production output to be maximised without regard to secondary costs.

I only seem off the deep end because the industry has brainwashed itself. The computer no longer exclusively serves humans. Rather, humans now look to the computer to know what to do. Talk about "imperfect worlds" is the same thing irresponsible scientists say about "imperfect information". People think spreading harmful theories is fine because they have "imperfect information". It is the same with software. People have lost touch with the possibility of doing nothing instead of engaging in harmful action. If the economy was in a downturn would you see that as an excuse to turn to the tobacco business? The basic misconception here is that the production of more software overrides problems such as increasingly irreversible dependency on complex systems. I keep hearing the same thing I heard when I was in academia: admissions that people were creating problems along with endless excuses and expressions of career-motivated cowardice. Anyone who criticises the bank bailouts as moral hazard and who is also working to build complex systems today is a hypocrite. Because it is the same heroin addict thinking: that we can fix an addiction by increasing the dosage.

The fact that you can't document the web standards in a few pages demonstrates how badly designed it is. Instead of shaping humans to fit the system, the system should be simple enough that anyone can understand it. The limit is then just how creative and clever they can be with that understanding.

Remember when anyone could do some calculations in Basic and assembler? Now you have to absorb loads of "expert" knowledge to do anything interesting.

What about the truth elucidated in philosophy, religion and even fiction? It's not like philosophers ever obtain "factual" status, and yet there is tremendous truth in many philosophical works.

I find the behaviour repugnant. But the message is being overshadowed by the messenger.

As opposed to the lies of journalists who emphasise the wrong facts.

Are you suggesting that journalists promote greater truth than entertainers? Have you read the news lately? Truth isn't limited to mere factual correctness.

Your accusation is useless because the PL tools don't solve this problem either. Currently the only tools we have in networks are cryptographic and social, and those are not provably secure. And the point is that what is considered "non-trivial" nowadays is actually "monstrously huge and self-serving". A computer is just a tool but people want to build a whole world in there. And after that they become addicts, leading to absurd rationalisations about how we need more to cure us.

Well feel free to let software rot into pure shit under these continued rationalisations. What a great service you're doing to the users.

Why downvote? HN has really gone down the tubes. Why do peopel who downvote harmless comments without a response get downvote privileges?

A better idea would be to just build a small system whose security was obvious. Computer scientists are right to mimic mathematics. They're just mimicking it too directly. Mathematics is based on construction from simple axioms and cross-checking of different theories. Computer systems should be reduced to small parts with redundant checks against human error. If you prove a kernel "correct" that just means it will be that much harder to rewrite it if it turns out not to be what you wanted.

I'm not really interested in what's "considered useful". Look at the state of web applications. Basically what we could already do in 1996 but using more resources and full of ads and other distractions. And yet to many people this step backwards represents state of the art computing. "Productivity" is highly overrated. Computers are already extremely useful without a bunch of gimmicks. Most of the Web 2.0 companies are creating the desire for their own product. Facebook has turned family photo sharing into a circus show. It doesn't serve any need other than to push for more neomaniacal computerisation. Some people will want to share family photos over the web. We can do that with very simple software. It can even be loaded on demand and sandboxed without any configuration without a hugely complex platform. _Simple_ virtual machines capable of this kind of work aren't hard to construct. But people keep chasing idiotic benchmarks instead. And if it's too slow then change the hardware to make sandboxing easier.

Each hardware device is accessed by a single process at a time. Any multiplexing that needs to be fast is done in hardware. Other multiplexing can be done in user space. For example, and application can request a dedicated channel to some blocks on the hard disk (adjudicated by the OS) or just use another hard disk. Remember, we're building simple applications here so things don't need to constantly write off the the disk for various tasks. You would only be dealing with the disk if your actual data was too big to fit into memory. Cases like that need careful design, not delegation off to some other programmer who doesn't know your problem.

If you're running a server application you split it into some reasonable number of tasks and allocate cores to them as needed. Nothing else runs on the system at all. If you need more cores either upgrade your hardware or you build another identical machine and talk to it over the network. If you look at the way Moore designs, he's crafting a complete artifact to solve a specific problem, not just throwing generic parts together.

Call it bold or courageous. He's doing something few are willing to do. I'm not saying he's a hero in the same sense as a soldier or anything here, but he's worth 100x more than the drones who just keep piling mess upon mess without even being able to admit what they are doing.